[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16006-16008]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    EMERGENCY AGRICULTURE ASSISTANCE

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I am here on the floor out of a sense 
of frustration and I suppose a very deep sense of dedication, maybe 
because I am from a seventh-generation Arkansas farm family, maybe 
because I am a daughter of a farmer who I watched for many years 
toiling to ensure that he could provide a good upbringing, a good 
heritage to his family, working on that family farm.
  Maybe it is because I have watched neighbors and family members who 
have had to give up a way of life and a profession, a piece of their 
heritage, because they were unsure of where their Government was going 
to be for them as family farmers. Or perhaps it is because they were 
inundated by so many things that were unpredictable, things they could 
not predict or control such as the weather or the economy or the fact 
that their Government could not make a decision as to whether the 
family farmer was important enough to support and to keep in business.
  I am really here because, in the 11th hour, I still take my job very 
seriously. That job is to be here to fight hard, to do everything I can 
to support that American farmer and that farmer in Arkansas who has 
spent this entire year trying to put out a crop and wondering whether 
or not his or her Government was going to come through in the end with 
an emergency supplemental appropriation as we promised.
  I am here to talk about agriculture and to talk about the rural 
economic crisis that we are on the verge of making even worse. Six 
years ago, Congress and the White House, the Republicans and the 
Democrats, stood toe to toe

[[Page 16007]]

and dared each other to blink. Of course no one did, and all that 
happened is that the Federal Government shut down. FSA offices and 
other important Government offices around the country closed. Farmers 
could not get access to the services they needed. Seniors could not 
access the services they needed. People all around the country were 
knocking on Government doors that would not open. But up here in 
Washington, instead of sitting down and figuring out how to get those 
doors open, politicians only pointed fingers at each other. They were 
more concerned about laying blame on each other than finding a 
solution.
  Here we are again. Now we find ourselves at another impasse, this 
time on an emergency assistance package for farmers that is profoundly 
crucial to the economic well-being of our farmers and our rural 
economies, an emergency assistance package we have been talking about 
since February. In February we started talking about the dire situation 
our farmers were in, that rural America was in dire straits because we 
had not addressed their needs, whether it was in trade or whether it 
was in how Government was going to provide them what they needed in 
order to be competitive and maintain themselves in a competitive way in 
the global marketplace.
  Whether we are talking about the delta region of Arkansas and 
Mississippi or the prairies of the Dakotas or anywhere else for that 
matter, our rural economies are in deep trouble.
  I don't think there is a single person in this body who would dispute 
that. Our farmers are hurting, and they are hurting badly. But, of 
course, they are not the only ones who are hurting. All of the small 
town institutions, businesses, and local banks were up here to talk to 
us back in February about what we do in extending these loans to these 
critical people in our communities. Do we give them a loan knowing 
their cost of production is going to be enormous because of energy and 
because of fertilizer input? Do we extend that loan knowing the prices 
are in the tank on commodities and have remained there and probably 
will remain there?
  It is also hurting the suppliers, the corner grocery stores on Main 
Street, and the car dealers. They are all hurting because their 
viability depends on the health of the farm economy.
  Colleagues, this crisis is real, and we are on the verge of making it 
much, much worse. If we don't get an emergency assistance package 
passed this week, these farmers and these small towns--very real 
people, many of whom happen to be related to me and to you--and these 
rural economies will have run out of time.
  I am frustrated. I am outraged that we have been sitting in this 
Chamber all week without being able to come to agreement on an 
emergency package that we all agree our farmers need. The House passed 
a $5.5 billion emergency package, and they are saying, oh, just do what 
we did, and we can all go home. But that doesn't even meet the needs of 
the AMTA assistance payments that our farmers need to survive. The fact 
is, it doesn't even give them what they had prior to 1999.
  Because of the Freedom to Farm Act, we have ratcheted down the 
payments every year that the Government is willing to provide to help 
them compete in that global marketplace. What happened? We are coming 
now and asking them to take even less in that emergency assistance.
  I don't blame Republicans and I don't blame Democrats. I blame all of 
us because we are all responsible if we are unable to come together 
because we are ready to go home or because we are tired and we don't 
want to do our job by coming together and getting a package approved 
and sending it out to rural America.
  I plead with the President. He visited with Young Farmers of America 
the other day and talked about how agriculture and farmers are the soul 
of America. Let me tell you, they need us right now. They need us a 
lot.
  It is our duty at this point not to be tired, not to go home, but to 
sit down with one another and talk about how we can come together to 
provide them what they need. It is no wonder that the citizens of this 
country are cynical about what goes on in Washington. Farmers have been 
out there toiling all year and for centuries--many centuries ago--to 
provide us with the safest, most abundant and affordable food supply in 
this world.
  I think it certainly behooves us to stay a few extra hours to come up 
with something that is going to be the best possible job and the best 
possible package for our American farmers. They look for farm support 
and all they see is another showdown at the OK Corral. Only it isn't 
Congress. It is our farmers, and our rural economy, and the people who 
live in these communities who are in the line of fire. We need to put 
our guns back in our holsters, and we need to find some resolution to 
this impasse.
  I, for one, am ready to stay here and do the job that the people of 
Arkansas sent me here to do; that is, to work out an agreement and come 
up with the solutions on behalf of those people who ensure that I and 
my children, and you and your children, have a safe, abundant, and 
affordable food supply day in and day out.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague and friend from 
Arkansas for the very poignant speech she just gave about the plight of 
agriculture in America. Senator Lincoln has said it succinctly and with 
meaning and I think with a passion that she rightly has to fight for 
the people who live in our small towns and communities--our farmers. 
She is right. They are hurting. We have to pay attention.
  We are operating under the failed Freedom to Farm bill that was 
passed back in 1996. Year after year we have had to come in and patch 
it up, fix it up, and put in supplemental payments to keep our farmers 
alive, to keep their heads above water.
  It is another reason why in the new farm bill we have to make the 
changes necessary to get off of the old failed Freedom to Farm bill and 
to have a farm bill where we don't have to rely on a yearly basis on a 
fickle Congress or a President who says no.
  We have come up with a bill out of our Agriculture Committee that 
would at least provide for our farmers the same payment they received 
last year to help keep them going. But, even with those payments, it 
won't make them whole because of the increased fuel prices and 
fertilizer prices and everything else.
  I have heard from the administration that the reason they don't want 
the bill we reported out of the Committee is because they have seen net 
farm income go up this year. I am sorry. I don't know what figures they 
are looking at. I think what they are saying is last year our farm 
prices were at a 15-year low. Farm income is a little better than last 
year, but really the increase comes almost entirely from increased 
livestock prices--not grain prices. Prices are still in the basement. 
But the bill before us provides money to the crop farmers. They are the 
ones who are hurting. But the President said no, that he is going to 
veto the bill because he said farmers don't need that much money. Keep 
in mind that the bill is within our budget guidelines. We are doing 
exactly what the budget allows us to do, but the President says no, it 
is too much.
  This is the difference. I have to point this out. In the fall of 
1998, Congress passed emergency relief for farmers. It went to the 
White House. President Clinton vetoed it because it wasn't enough to 
help our farmers. We came back and added more money to keep our farmers 
alive and well.
  This year the Senate passed a bill to provide sufficient support for 
our farmers. This President says no, he will veto it because it is too 
much. What a difference.
  What do we have here that is costing extra money? We have the full 
level of market loss and oilseed payments that were in a similar 
package last year. We also have nutrition, rural economic development 
and conservation money. We have money for several conservation

[[Page 16008]]

programs, including the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program, the Farmland Protection Program, the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program.
  Right now for the Wetlands Reserve Program we have a backlog of $568 
million nationwide. Here are the top 10 States with the backlog: 
Arkansas, Iowa, California, Louisiana, Missouri, Florida, Minnesota, 
Illinois, Michigan, and Mississippi.
  Our bill provides $200 million to cut that backlog down by over a 
third. It would enroll 150,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program. 
The President says no. That is too much.
  For the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the backlog is $14 
million. We have put in $7 million to cut it down by half. Again, the 
top 10 States are Oregon, Texas, Florida, West Virginia, Arkansas, 
Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Arkansas, and South Dakota. We had $7 
million, and the President says no. That is too much.
  The Farmland Protection Program is a program that provides some money 
for the state and local governments and non-profit groups so they can 
buy development easements from farmers to stop the urban sprawl. There 
is a $255 million backlog for FPP. The top 10 States are: California, 
New York, Maryland, Florida, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, 
Michigan, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
  In that program, we put $40 million to help leverage money supplied 
by state and local governments, as well as non-profit groups--they are 
already doing it--to help buy easements to keep the land from being 
developed for non-agricultural purposes. The President says: No, that 
is too much money.
  Finally, we have the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The 
backlog is over $1.3 billion. We have $250 million in the bill, plus 
$200 million already in the law, which would help cut that down by 
about a third. Again, the top 10 States are: Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, 
Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Virginia. 
We put $250 million in the bill. The President says: No, it is too much 
money.
  It is not too much, in any case, to help save our soil and our water, 
to provide conservation money to farmers and ranchers in America who 
need the help and who need the support.
  The Lugar substitute, that I guess we will be voting on, takes out 
all this conservation money. It provides zero dollars for conservation. 
It is rather sad that we are in this situation. We are trying to help 
farmers be good stewards and the President stands in the way.
  As Senator Lincoln said: Our farmers are good stewards of their land. 
They try to take good care of it. In many cases, these farmers are 
spending their own money, using their own equipment, spending their 
time--and all we are trying to do is give them some help and support. 
And the President has said: No, that is too much.
  We will debate this more tomorrow. But tonight I wanted to just point 
out what we have in the bill, to try to help our farmers with 
conservation. Three of these programs will be put into jeopardy, and 
all will be underfunded. The Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife 
Habitat Incentives Program and the Farmland Protection Program will all 
be put in jeopardy because we will not fund them if the Lugar amendment 
is adopted.
  Finally, I have had a lot of conversations with people at the White 
House and OMB today. They want to spend only $5.5 billion. When I asked 
why, I got the answer: Because they want $5.5 billion.
  I don't see any real reason for it because the budget does allow us 
to spend not only $5.5 billion in fiscal 2001, but $7.35 billion for 
fiscal 2002.
  So what we are trying to do is what the budget allows us to do right 
now: get the money out to help our farmers now, get the conservation 
program funding out, and get money out to help some of our specialty 
crop producers around the country. And basically the President is 
saying, no.
  I hope the Senate will persevere. I hope we will tell the President 
we have to fight for our farmers and our farm families; that we cannot, 
for no good reason fail to send the help they need. I have not heard 
one good reason from the White House why we should not put this money 
out to help save our farmers. I believe we have to, that we must, and I 
hope we do tomorrow.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, be allowed to speak for up to 15 
minutes after I speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________